another Carpe Jugulum [A]

7 views
Skip to first unread message

Dids

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
I was going to leave thisun till thursday when a few
more of you will have read it, but seeing as they have
started appearing already I shall give you my most
probable one:
Spoiler space follows:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Did you enjoy that? Good. Now:

It concerns a cartoon that both me and Pterry share a liking
for:Count Duckula. Not only does igor bear a remarkable
resembalance to the butler in Count Duckula in that he wishes
his new master was like his old master, but there is a more
explicit reference when Vlad is showing Agnes his family
portraits. The very earliest one has a faint suggestion of a
beak.
Also, the whole 'showing family portraits' scene was, I think,
nicked from an episode of count duckula called 'the search
for the mystic saxophone' where Igor is trying to teach the
yellow beaked one about his family history.

A good one eh? There'll be another one along as soon as I
have researched it a bit more.

Dids.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
In Carols heap, AFPiancee to the delectable Naomi.
"Most of family silver already nicked by butler..."
AFPurity: 68% and falling.

Terry Pratchett

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
In article <71kabd$bls$1...@library.lspace.org>, Dids <Di...@didactylos.free
serve.co.uk> writes

>I was going to leave thisun till thursday when a few
>more of you will have read it, but seeing as they have
>started appearing already I shall give you my most
>probable one:
>Spoiler space follows:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>Did you enjoy that? Good. Now:
>
>It concerns a cartoon that both me and Pterry share a liking
>for:Count Duckula. Not only does igor bear a remarkable
>resembalance to the butler in Count Duckula in that he wishes
>his new master was like his old master, but there is a more
>explicit reference when Vlad is showing Agnes his family
>portraits. The very earliest one has a faint suggestion of a
>beak.
>Also, the whole 'showing family portraits' scene was, I think,
>nicked from an episode of count duckula called

Now let's try the read world, shall we? Some of the oldest
recorded mentions of vampires appear to portray them half-birds,
stabbing with their beaks. In fact the 'classic' fanged vampire is a
fairly new incarnation; most folklore has them as foul-smilling beasts,
far more like the traditional werewolves. What Agnes is shown is the
'evolution' of vampires -- harpy, hairy monster, Lugosi/Lee and Byronic
bastard. And what better way to demonstrate this that a succession of
family portraits?

In fact I 'nicked' it from Star Trek, as any fool knows...

As an aside, very little vampiric legend and folklore in CJ is made up -
- even the vampire tools and watermelons are real world beliefs.

--
Terry Pratchett

Leo Breebaart

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
[Cc'd to abp, but followups to afp -- please honour]

[Contains no real spoilers for CJ]

> Also, the whole 'showing family portraits' scene was, I think, nicked
> from an episode of count duckula

I would like to draw everyone's attention to something that has been
bothering me for some time. It's something that -- judging from discussions
I've been having at recent afpmeets -- has been bothering a number of other
afpers as well, and that I think, although I cannot speak for him nor read
his mind, has also been bothering Terry: the increased use of suggestive
language and unwarranted self-confidence in afp/abp articles, which is
unintentionally helping to foster an atmosphere in which the "Annotation or
Bust" school of annotation-hunting thrives.

I am talking about the carefree use of informal language such as "nicked",
"stolen", even "plagiarised", and of course the ever popular "it is clearly
obvious that...", when referring to things which are, in the end, usually
entirely unconfirmed references or resonances we *think* we may have
spotted in PTerry's work.

I am most specifically not targeting individual afpers here. In the vast
majority of cases when someone writes "oh, he's nicked this from..." I'm
aware the underlying emotions are admiration and enthusiasm, rather than
accusation or complaint. And I don't particularly wish to go back to the
early days when people were so shy about coming up with annotations that
they prefixed nearly everything with "this is probably completely wrong,
but just on the off chance that it isn't..."

Nevertheless, I think it would be a Very Good Thing Indeed if we could all
put ourselves in empathic mode for a sec and try to realise how bloody
*annoying* it must get for an author to constantly have to read that he
nicked this bit or obviously copied that bit, especially when the people
doing the pointing-out are (a) so often just plain wrong, and (b)
nevertheless using this careless and potentially hurtful language. It's the
cumulative effect, the unspoken "Discworld novels are *nothing but* a
derivative collection of Star Trek based oneliners" conclusion, that
worries me. I think afp has crossed a border some time ago, and we need to
retrace our steps a bit.

As editor of the Annotated Pratchett File I am well aware that by posting
this complaint I may be soliciting sharply worded replies making mention of
kettles and pots, motes and beams. But it is precisely *because* it can be
argued that the APF is to a (very) large extent responsible for feeding if
not originating the "let's annotate the bejeezus out of every Discworld
novel" atmosphere on afp/abp, that I am more and more starting to recoil in
horror (well, not really, but you know what I mean) every time I see
another annotation phrased like the one quoted above. I feel responsible,
as if I'm the old Count himself, who has created a monster with the help of
his faithful servants Igor (abp) and Thcrapth (afp, clearly :-))...

Hence my request: in the future, particularly with the release of Carpe
Jugulum and Jingo about to hit these newsgroups, can we perhaps all try to
be just a little bit more careful and considerate when spotting and posting
annotations?

--
Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org>

Patrik Hulten

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Terry Pratchett wrote:

> >Spoiler space follows:


> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
>
> In fact I 'nicked' it from Star Trek, as any fool knows...
>

Which probably means that, being a trekkie/trekker and not knowing this
would indicate that im _not_ a fool. Or that im a special kind of fool?

//Patrik with no beard


Peter Ellis

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
z94...@mtek.chalmers.se wrote...

Not really -- much as Lancrastrians would nail iron over their doors to
keep elves away, PTerry's taken to nailing irony on his posts to keep
dorks away.

Unfortunately it seems that this doesn't always work...

I suggest we try nailing irony *to* the dorks -- this might have a
better effect.

Think of it as evolution in action.

Peter

Antti Lehtola

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to

Peter Ellis wrote:
>
>
>Not really -- much as Lancrastrians would nail iron over their
doors to
>keep elves away, PTerry's taken to nailing irony on his posts to
keep
>dorks away.
>
>Unfortunately it seems that this doesn't always work...
>
>I suggest we try nailing irony *to* the dorks -- this might have a
>better effect.
>
>Think of it as evolution in action.

So Dids is a dork because he made an annotation using pretty much
the same terminology than anybody else here? Really...

I'm with Leo - we should watch our language when making annotations.
What makes him very easy to agree with is the fact that *he* watched
*his* language while bringing up the point.

Obviously Dids didn't mean 'nick' as a synonym for 'plagiarize'. He
just used it like it's, unfortunately, been used around here.

So let's ALL try not to use word when annotating - but let's not
start calling people dorks either, when clearly there has been no
malice behind anybody's actions.

--
Antti - AFPfianced to the Strange Singing Julie and Esmi,
AFPBrother to Rob Smiley and Heather,
AFPBig Brother to Claire, In Carol's Heap,
In-lafpw to MEG - The Cousin We Do Not Mention to Miq

Sam

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
Leo Breebaart put digit to keypad, to say:

>[Contains no real spoilers for CJ]
>

<snip Leo's well written call for restraint>

AOL to that!

To say that PTerry has stolen or nicked something from some place
or other, is to miss the point of the Discworld altogether (IMHO
only of course). For me, a part of the majesty[5] of the Discworld
is the way in which PTerry so expertly satirises[1] RL. Some of the
humour relies on references to other work. This does not make it
plagiarism, it is not possible to satirise without making reference
to something other.

Also, we do need to be careful not to be too bold in our assertions,
if only to avoid egg on face syndrome[2]. You may well have come
across a similar piece of writing to something you find in PTerry's
Discworld. But don't forget, that author would've been influenced by
what had gone before her(him) and so on. None of us live in a vacuum
[3], uninfluenced by what we have read/heard in the World around us.

In my view, annotations done properly are not necesarrily a bad
thing. As PTerry has pointed out, some of his jokes may only be
understood by certain sections of the public. The annotations serve
to inform and to let us all in on some of the jokes.

There is no doubt that PTerry's work is original[4] and his humour
spot on, so let's not demean his writing with our own clumsy use of
language adding fuel to the critics' fire. After all, we're meant to
be fans. In the words of Wayne and Garth:

_We're not worthy, we're not worthy_

Sam

[1] Parody, pastiche, whatever...
[2] aka foot in mouth disease
[3] except for Henry of course:-)
[4] more original than anything I've read since Tolkein - say hello
to Mr Flame...
[5] Of course, there's also the way the stories are so brilliantly
constructed. PTerry's writing has a style which is the embodiment
of wit itself. His mastery of the footnote is a thing that has to be
seen to be believed...I could go on, but someone's just passed me a
coat?

--
"You may call me Terry"
B Dylan

Gideon Hallett

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
On Mon, 2 Nov 1998 16:44:23 -0000, pj...@cam.ac.uk (Peter Ellis)
was a jolly decent type and shared with us:

>z94...@mtek.chalmers.se wrote...
>>
>>On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Terry Pratchett wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> In fact I 'nicked' it from Star Trek, as any fool knows...
>>>
>>
>>Which probably means that, being a trekkie/trekker and not knowing this
>>would indicate that im _not_ a fool. Or that im a special kind of fool?
>>
>

>Not really -- much as Lancrastrians would nail iron over their doors to
>keep elves away, PTerry's taken to nailing irony on his posts to keep
>dorks away.
>
>Unfortunately it seems that this doesn't always work...
>
>I suggest we try nailing irony *to* the dorks -- this might have a
>better effect.

Armour-plated dorks? No. Not a good idea at all. Hell, half of
them are thick-skinned enough to make a rhino seem sensitive.

On the other hand, you could make a fortune by investing in
magnets...

Gideon.

--
(((( | Gideon_...@3Com.com.========================|
o__))))) | - Bringing permed '70s-retro hedgehogs to the =|
__ \'((((( | common people since he got bored one afternoon.=|


Terry Pratchett

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
In article <71kj8r$js0$1...@rama.twi.tudelft.nl>, Leo Breebaart
<l...@lspace.org> writes

>
>I am talking about the carefree use of informal language such as "nicked",
>"stolen", even "plagiarised", and of course the ever popular "it is clearly
>obvious that...", when referring to things which are, in the end, usually
>entirely unconfirmed references or resonances we *think* we may have
>spotted in PTerry's work.

A sort of moderating comment...(but best to add some spoiler space)

Probably no other fictional monster has been so written up, filmed and
played as The Vampire. I read my way through a shelf of stuff while
writing CJ and *of course* there are scattered through it references to
the general vampire mythos -- as I've said elsewhere, there's little in
there about vampires that I had to make up. Vampires didn't begin and
end with Dracula. There were even high-class, Lestat-type vampires in
19th Century fiction. There are *lots* of references in CJ to 'Dracula',
both the original book and the various influential movies that have been
made of it, because they've largely defined our image of the vampire
(which, before 'Dracula', was quite different). And it wouldn't be DW
if I couldn't take the pi-- poke some fun at the Anne Rice wannabes who
think vampires are so cool...

Of course, everyone in Transylvania -- oops, Uberwald -- has a servant
called Igor. It's practically compulsory. Does Igor show Count Duckula
a picture gallery anywhere in the series? I don't know, and I don't
care much -- because I can recall 'pictures of ancestors' as minor
background in vampire movies generally (sometimes the eyes move, and
sometimes, 'hey, did you know you look *just* like the girl who died 300
years ago and here's her picture?' Generally, of course, the vampire in
the pictures always looks remarkably like the one doing the showing...)
And I can't quite bring myself to believe that ancient retainers
grumbling that the new people aren't a patch on the masters he used to
have was invented by Cosgrove-Hall.

I can hardly object to annotations, but I did spend my youthful Satuday
mornings watching endless bad (and good) vampire movies (it got so I
could *recognise* that bit of road by the dark lake where, in Hammer
Horror movies, the coach *always* loses a wheel) and before I wrote CJ I
read of lot of historical and reference vampire stuff (as have most
modern writers of fictional vampires). We all mine from the same seam.
That's why most vampire movies are remarkably similar -- the only
suspense is working out which *new* way of killing a vampire is going to
be demonstrated this time.

--
Terry Pratchett

MegaMole

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
In article <94E6QCAH...@unseen.demon.co.uk>, Terry Pratchett
<tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk> writes

[snip wholly understandable irritation from OFiah [1] and others about
the word "nicked"]

NB: I haven't read CJ yet[2], I'm just interested in vampires...

[Pterry...]


>I can hardly object to annotations, but I did spend my youthful Satuday
>mornings watching endless bad (and good) vampire movies (it got so I
>could *recognise* that bit of road by the dark lake where, in Hammer
>Horror movies, the coach *always* loses a wheel) and before I wrote CJ I
>read of lot of historical and reference vampire stuff (as have most
>modern writers of fictional vampires). We all mine from the same seam.

I just hope you'll be taking the piss out of Anne Rice. She _really_
deserves it. And has anyone read Anno Dracula by Kim Newman? A real
hoot.

>That's why most vampire movies are remarkably similar -- the only
>suspense is working out which *new* way of killing a vampire is going to
>be demonstrated this time.
>

My personal favourite was in The Lost Boys where one of them is placed
in a bath full of holy water...

... and then all the plumbing explodes.

Try getting Dyno-Rod to sort that one out.

[1] Can I call you Martin? (Gratuitous rugby reference) Or Chariots?
[2] Note the use of the word YET.


IGMC
--
MegaMole

Dids

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
Terry Pratchett(!) felt moved to scribe:

>Now let's try the read world, shall we? Some of the oldest
>recorded mentions of vampires appear to portray them half->birds,stabbing
with their beaks. In fact the 'classic' fanged >vampire is a fairly new
incarnation; most folklore has them as >foul-smilling beasts, far more like
the traditional werewolves. >What Agnes is shown is the 'evolution' of
vampires -- harpy, >hairy monster, Lugosi/Lee and Byronic bastard. And what
>better way to demonstrate this that a succession of family >portraits?

Aaagghh, Dammit, I really thought I had that one. Am I
*totally* wrong and there is no igor in igor(IYSWIM) either?

>In fact I 'nicked' it from Star Trek, as any fool knows...

^^^^^^^
Apologies, bad choice of words. The scene just rung
immediate bells, and when it got to the beak bit, that
clinched it my mind. Especially due to your well documented
liking for the little green chap.

Needless to say, if I'm right about the next one, I'll be
a touch more tactful and a damn site more sure its right.

Dids.

-----------------------------------------------------------------
In Carols heap, AFPfiancee to the delectable Naomi and
the multicoloured Sam(antha). AFPurity: 68% and falling...
"Never put your tongue where you wouldn't put your toothbrush"
Nanny Ogg, acting out of character. ICQ: 21806156

Patrik Hulten

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Dids wrote:

> >In fact I 'nicked' it from Star Trek, as any fool knows...
>
> ^^^^^^^
> Apologies, bad choice of words. The scene just rung
> immediate bells, and when it got to the beak bit, that
> clinched it my mind. Especially due to your well documented
> liking for the little green chap.

Ok, so now you lost me completely. Before i was only mildly confused, but
now... whoa!

//Patrik aka Blaren

Trio

unread,
Nov 2, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/2/98
to
In article <71kj8r$js0$1...@rama.twi.tudelft.nl>, l...@lspace.org says...
> [Contains no spoilers for CJ]
>
Major snip

>
> Hence my request: in the future, particularly with the release of Carpe
> Jugulum and Jingo about to hit these newsgroups, can we perhaps all try to
> be just a little bit more careful and considerate when spotting and posting
> annotations?
>
Would it also be possible for everyone to hold off on annotations for
a week after the release date (or a few days after ppint posts them
out, whichever happens later) before making annotations. This would
give everyone a chance to read the book without having to skip posts
with spoilers and also let people join in discussions about the
annotations.

just a thought

trio

Paul Andinach

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to
On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, MegaMole wrote:

> And has anyone read Anno Dracula by Kim Newman?

Me. And I knew someone was going to mention it sooner or later.

I think Pterry's actually listed in the credits in the end. If he
isn't, he's about the only one of my favourite British authors who
isn't.

Paul
--
"We'll also need to find a space for Sean Connery. I don't know what
as, just yet, but it's a rule of nature that every dream cast list
has Sean Connery in it somewhere."
- The Internet Oracle


Gid Holyoake

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to
In article <OZ8kUWAD$fP2...@countertenor.demon.co.uk>, MegaMole
generously decided to share with us:

Mucho Snippetry..

> [1] Can I call you Martin? (Gratuitous rugby reference) Or Chariots?

Oooh.. I remember him.. he played for Bedford.. well.. they *said* he
played for Bedford.. all I ever saw him do was run up and down the pitch
trying to look like a rugby player, and failing miserably.. he had a bad
toe apparently, which stopped him playing.. if he'd been a *real* rugby
player he would have turned up for duty, ready to play, with a broken
leg or worse.. I dunno.. these boys from the thirteen player code who
think they can play alongside the men in the *real* game.....

Gid (ex prop-forward.. tighthead if you're interested!)

--
The Most Noble and Exalted Peculiar , Harem Master to Veiled Concubines
Guardian of the Sacred !!!!!'s , Defender of the Temple of AFPdoration
Click on http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~gidnsuzi/ for The Irrelevant Page

Ross Smith

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to
Julia Jones wrote:
>
> x-no-archive: yes
>
> In article <Pine.LNX.3.96.981103...@mermaid.ucc.gu.uwa.
> edu.au>, Paul Andinach <pand...@mermaid.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> writes

> >On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, MegaMole wrote:
> >
> >> And has anyone read Anno Dracula by Kim Newman?
> >
> >Me. And I knew someone was going to mention it sooner or later.
>
> Me too. I quite enjoyed it, actually. Something to do with it having a
> heroine who didn't go all limp and screaming at the sight of a bad guy.

There's a sequel, _The Bloody Red Baron_.

--
Ross Smith ....................................... Auckland, New Zealand
<mailto:r-s...@ihug.co.nz> ........ <http://crash.ihug.co.nz/~r-smith/>
"Oh boy! Violence! Can't wait! Hey, sex is everywhere, but good
violence is hard to find!" -- Michael Thompson

Paul Andinach

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to
On Tue, 3 Nov 1998, Ross Smith wrote:

> Paul Andinach <pand...@mermaid.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> writes
>
> > On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, MegaMole wrote:
> >
> > > And has anyone read Anno Dracula by Kim Newman?
> >
> > Me. And I knew someone was going to mention it sooner or later.
>

> There's a sequel, _The Bloody Red Baron_.

You left the second half of the sentence out. Everyone else who's
mentioned it in my hearing has added ", which isn't as good as _Anno
Dracula_."

An~ejo

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to
Gid Holyoake <G...@netcomuk.co.uk> wrote in article
<MPG.10a85fd9b...@news.lspace.org>...

> I dunno.. these boys from the thirteen player code who
> think they can play alongside the men in the *real* game.....

That's dangerously close to trolling, Gid.... <g>

<ahem>

Rugby League _is_ the One True Code. You can tell because
the players actually _play_rugby_ rather than just trying to
beat each other up. In fact, they manage to do both at the
same time....

And I'm not arguing on the matter cos I know I'm right.

An~ejo

Andy Davison

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to
On 03 Nov 1998, G...@netcomuk.co.uk (Gid Holyoake) said ...

> Oooh.. I remember him.. he played for Bedford.. well.. they *said* he
> played for Bedford.. all I ever saw him do was run up and down the pitch
> trying to look like a rugby player, and failing miserably.. he had a bad
> toe apparently, which stopped him playing.. if he'd been a *real* rugby
> player he would have turned up for duty, ready to play, with a broken

> leg or worse.. I dunno.. these boys from the thirteen player code who

> think they can play alongside the men in the *real* game.....

Wasn't he Union to start with? I thought he went to League from Richmond or
somewhere. I heard he had to give up the game because he didn't like the
taste of aftershave :)

--
Andy Davison
andyd...@oiyou.force9.co.uk
JZR RIP

cd skogsberg

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to
In article <363EC7...@ihug.co.nz>, Ross Smith <r-s...@ihug.co.nz> wrote:

>Julia Jones wrote:
>> In article <Pine.LNX.3.96.981103...@mermaid.ucc.gu.uwa.
>> edu.au>, Paul Andinach <pand...@mermaid.ucc.gu.uwa.edu.au> writes

>> >On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, MegaMole wrote:

>> >> And has anyone read Anno Dracula by Kim Newman?

>> >Me. And I knew someone was going to mention it sooner or later.

>> Me too. I quite enjoyed it, actually. Something to do with it having a


>> heroine who didn't go all limp and screaming at the sight of a bad guy.

I, too, have read _Anno Dracula_. And I liked Genevieve, too. She's also
in what I've read of Newman's Warhammer Fantasy works[1]: _Drachenfels_
and _Genevieve Undead_...

>There's a sequel, _The Bloody Red Baron_.

...And I heard rumours on rec.arts.sf.written a while ago that Newman is
working on another book in this sequence, featuring Genevieve again.

Yay!

/cd
[1]: Writing as Jack Yeovil
--
"Have you ever noticed...whenever God needed a killing...he sent an angel.
Have you ever wondered what a creature like that must be like? Your whole
existence praising your God but always with one wing dipped in blood.
Would you ever really want to see an angel?" -- The Prophecy

Paul Andinach

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to
On 3 Nov 1998, cd skogsberg wrote:

> I, too, have read _Anno Dracula_. And I liked Genevieve, too. She's
> also in what I've read of Newman's Warhammer Fantasy works[1]:
> _Drachenfels_ and _Genevieve Undead_...

> [1]: Writing as Jack Yeovil

According to the (afterword? foreword?) of one of Kim Newman's books
in the local library, they're two different characters. The names are
spelled differently, too, but I can't remember how he spelled the one
that wasn't Genevieve.

Suzi

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to
An~ejo wrote:
>
> Rugby League _is_ the One True Code. You can tell because
> the players actually _play_rugby_ rather than just trying to
> beat each other up. In fact, they manage to do both at the
> same time....

At least in proper Rugby (_Union_) they don't keep stopping every five
seconds just because someone happens to have a light hold of their
ankle... looks more like American football to me!!

> And I'm not arguing on the matter cos I know I'm right.

:-P we can't both be right - and I *know* I'm not wrong here <g>

Suzi
--
"Pyramids" the play!... 5th-9th January 1999 - Bedford (UK)
http://www.netcomuk.co.uk/~gidnsuzi/pyramids.html
su...@lspace.org or su...@netcomuk.co.uk for more details

Suzi

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to
Trio wrote:
>
> Would it also be possible for everyone to hold off on annotations for
> a week after the release date (or a few days after ppint posts them
> out, whichever happens later) before making annotations. This would
> give everyone a chance to read the book without having to skip posts
> with spoilers and also let people join in discussions about the
> annotations.

I think this is an *excellent* idea... can I suggest no posting of Carpe
Jugulum annotations until Saturday 14th November?

Suzi
(and I *have* read it... so that isn't the reason for agreeing with this
<g>)

An~ejo

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to
Suzi <Su...@lspace.org> wrote in article <363F0C...@lspace.org>...

> An~ejo wrote:
> >
> > Rugby League _is_ the One True Code. You can tell because
> > the players actually _play_rugby_ rather than just trying to
> > beat each other up. In fact, they manage to do both at the
> > same time....
>
> At least in proper Rugby (_Union_) they don't keep stopping every five
> seconds just because someone happens to have a light hold of their
> ankle... looks more like American football to me!!

Every five seconds? You've been watching some baaaad matches! And at
least it means the game moves on rather than everybody kicking one
player for half an hour <g>

> > And I'm not arguing on the matter cos I know I'm right.
>
> :-P we can't both be right - and I *know* I'm not wrong here <g>

In that case I must have misread your post. I thought you were saying
that union was better than league but, seeing as you claim to be right,
you must have been supporting league after all. <g>

An~ejo

An~ejo

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to

Suzi <Su...@lspace.org> wrote in article <363F0D...@lspace.org>...


> Trio wrote:
> >
> > Would it also be possible for everyone to hold off on annotations for
> > a week after the release date (or a few days after ppint posts them
> > out, whichever happens later) before making annotations. This would
> > give everyone a chance to read the book without having to skip posts
> > with spoilers and also let people join in discussions about the
> > annotations.
>
> I think this is an *excellent* idea... can I suggest no posting of Carpe
> Jugulum annotations until Saturday 14th November?

I'll agree with that. Largely because I'm only on page 9 atm...[1]

An~ejo

[1] For some reason my boss is insisting that I 'work' occasionally?

Emma Tinsley

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to

On 3 Nov 1998, An~ejo wrote:

(snip about delaying CJ annotations - good idea)

> I'll agree with that. Largely because I'm only on page 9 atm...[1]
>
> An~ejo
>
> [1] For some reason my boss is insisting that I 'work' occasionally?
>
>

My boss decided to come into our office today, something he *never* does,
and I couldn't put the book down. Managed to get to page 80. If he says
something, I'll lend it to him!
I wasn't going to get any more hardbacks, but Hammicks were selling them 5
quid off, and I couldn't resist, it being pay day and all.

The Interchangeable

----
Disclaimer: Do not hold The Sanger Centre responsible for what I type.
(they haven't found the gene for spelling yet!)


Nils

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to
[snip]

>I am talking about the carefree use of informal language such
>as "nicked", "stolen", even "plagiarised", and of course the
>ever popular "it is clearly obvious that...", when referring to
>things which are, in the end, usually entirely unconfirmed
>references or resonances we *think* we may have spotted in
>PTerry's work.

hm.
Perhaps everyone (who forgot) should remember 'that
stealing from one author is plagiarism, stealing from many is
good research', as someones .sig once said...
Certainly Pterry has his information sources.
Still, that's not 'stealing'!

Then again I don't think that most annotators really
believe Pterry 'stole' those bits they thought they had
discovered.

It just became a common saying

I don't know Pterrys feelings about this. If he is
hurt, we should stop immidiately.
And maybe we should drop the phrase anyway - no
reason why we shouldn't doesn't hurt.

[snip]


>people were so shy about coming up with annotations that they
>prefixed nearly everything with "this is probably completely
>wrong, but just on the off chance that it isn't..."

[...]


>As editor of the Annotated Pratchett File I am well aware that
>by posting this complaint I may be soliciting sharply worded
>replies making mention of kettles and pots, motes and beams.
>But it is precisely *because* it can be argued that the APF is
>to a (very) large extent responsible for feeding if not
>originating the "let's annotate the bejeezus out of every
>Discworld novel" atmosphere on afp/abp, that I am more and more
>starting to recoil in horror (well, not really, but you know
>what I mean) every time I see another annotation phrased like
>the one quoted above.

Probably true.
Ppl think: I had the same idea about thisnthat topic.

Your posting, Leo, could be the wake-up call, then.

> I feel responsible, as if I'm the old
>Count himself, who has created a monster with the help of his
>faithful servants Igor (abp) and Thcrapth (afp, clearly :-))...

Don't feel responsible.
It certainly wasn't your fault. You did/do a fine
assembling the apf, and are not responsible for what harm
might have been done (whereas we still don't know what Pterry
thinks about that)...

>Hence my request: in the future, particularly with the release
>of Carpe Jugulum and Jingo about to hit these newsgroups, can

>we perhaps all try to be just a little bit more careful and


>considerate when spotting and posting annotations?

...And it isn't hard to do, so let's do that.

If everyone agrees, it's got to be put in the FAQs
too.


nils


--
** AFPiance of fair Selina, Belinda & Ookey (AFPolygamy) **
** AFPsibling of Meg, the magpie * AFPapa of li'l Claire **
AFP Code 1.1 AC d- s+++:- a- U+ R++ F++ h+ P-- OS-: C-- M-
pp--- L+ c B++ Cn PT++ Pu50+ 5 X- MT? e+++ r+ y** end

Nils

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to
z94hupa (z94...@mtek.chalmers.se) wrote on the 03.11.98
(in Pine.SOL.3.91.981102...@pi33.mtek.chalmers.se):
>On Mon, 2 Nov 1998, Terry Pratchett wrote:
[snip]

>> In fact I 'nicked' it from Star Trek, as any fool knows...
>>
>
>Which probably means that, being a trekkie/trekker and not
>knowing this would indicate that im _not_ a fool. Or that im a
>special kind of fool?

It means that you are a special kind of fool, as you
didn't get the joke!
=*)

No worries!

Andy Davison

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to
On 03 Nov 1998, Suzi <Su...@lspace.org> said ...

> An~ejo wrote:
> >
> > Rugby League _is_ the One True Code. You can tell because
> > the players actually _play_rugby_ rather than just trying to
> > beat each other up. In fact, they manage to do both at the
> > same time....
>
> At least in proper Rugby (_Union_) they don't keep stopping every five
> seconds just because someone happens to have a light hold of their
> ankle... looks more like American football to me!!
>
> > And I'm not arguing on the matter cos I know I'm right.
>
> :-P we can't both be right - and I *know* I'm not wrong here <g>

Rugby's a very manly game. Take the scrum for example:
"Now bend over while I shove my hand between your legs!"

League flows more. Union's more a game of strategy. Soccer's the real
thing.
A bloke at work is a member of a Union club so scummy I won't mentiomn it
(i.e. it's *not* the London Kiwis). He's now getting very worried about an
'evil-minded money-grabbing power-crazy control freak' (his own words). I
think he's right.

Terry Pratchett

unread,
Nov 3, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/3/98
to
In article <748w1...@p0078.orplid.shnet.org>, Nils
<zap...@orplid.shnet.org> writes

>
> Then again I don't think that most annotators really
>believe Pterry 'stole' those bits they thought they had
>discovered.
>
> It just became a common saying
>
> I don't know Pterrys feelings about this. If he is
>hurt, we should stop immidiately.

Hurt, no. Occasionally pissed off, yes.

Look, this is a text based medium, people. It involves a moderately
careful use of words -- we surely all know this, which is why the very
useful smiley was invented to indicate a comment made in a friendly way.
Did 'Airplane' *steal* references to a few dozen other movies? Surely
all those references added to the fun.

If anything in CJ makes someone thing of Count Duckula, well, that's not
a problem -- it was a popular cartoon series. But this is hardly a
'theft'. 'Plagiarise' is quite a specific and serious allegation.
Can anyone really believe that terms like 'refers to' or 'parodies' are
equivalent in force and meaning to 'stole' or 'plagiarised'?

You own your words.
--
Terry Pratchett

Rob Smiley

unread,
Nov 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/4/98
to


Terry Pratchett wrote in message ...


> which is why the very
>useful smiley was invented

I wasn't invented, I was _conceived_.
Unless that table in the cellar Dad keeps trying to hide had 'other' uses?

rcsm...@yahoo.com
"Mention the Lord of the Rings just once more, And I'll more than likely
kill you."
AFPfianced to Nisaba and MEG, AFPbrother to Antti and Heather and Peter and
Claire

Emma of XXXXia

unread,
Nov 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/4/98
to
In article <Lgn3mCAI...@unseen.demon.co.uk>,
tprat...@unseen.demon.co.uk says...
Yep. The only point I can see at all to Annotations (the froup
definition, which I have always assumed has nothing to do with stealing)
is that sometimes the Annotated bit is a joke whose meaning is lost if
you don't know the bit of pop culture it is based on etc. TLC probably
had a few of those - sometimes it helps to explain the idea. Other times
things are just so much a part of culture that you can't help but make
references to them, in which case the Annotations posts become a bit
boring as they're just so bl**dy obvious. All things in moderation, I
say!

BTW is it rude to follow up a post by the Great PterryOBE even if just to
agree with what He just said?

Emma
afpiance and cheese lover to David Roy.
Remove TT to email me. Cheese messages welcome.

Sam

unread,
Nov 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/4/98
to
Emma of XXXXia put digit to keypad, to say:

<snip>


>Yep. The only point I can see at all to Annotations (the froup
>definition, which I have always assumed has nothing to do with stealing)
>is that sometimes the Annotated bit is a joke whose meaning is lost if
>you don't know the bit of pop culture it is based on etc. TLC probably
>had a few of those - sometimes it helps to explain the idea. Other times
>things are just so much a part of culture that you can't help but make
>references to them, in which case the Annotations posts become a bit
>boring as they're just so bl**dy obvious. All things in moderation, I
>say!
>

Boring to some, because they're obvious to some. Maybe they are not
so obvious to others who have a different cultural background.

Sam
--
"I can't even remember what it was I came here to get away from"
B Dylan

Adrian Hurt

unread,
Nov 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/4/98
to
In article <OZ8kUWAD$fP2...@countertenor.demon.co.uk> MegaMole <PSmit...@countertenor.demon.co.uk> writes:
>
>I just hope you'll be taking the piss out of Anne Rice. She _really_
>deserves it. And has anyone read Anno Dracula by Kim Newman? A real
>hoot.

I'm reading it. I picked up the sequel, The Bloody Red Baron, at a station
while waiting for a train on the way home from CCDE97, and liked it a lot.
On the strength of that, I kept looking for Anno Dracula since then.

More recently, I was at Albacon this year. So was Kim Newman. So was a
copy of Anno Dracula. By the time I left, Kim Newman's signature was on
Anno Dracula [+], and Anno Dracula was in my bag.

[+] And also on one of the rockets which I flew at CCDE97.

--
"It'll be alright. I've done this before." - M. Garibaldi
-----------------+------------------------------+------------------
Adrian Hurt | E-mail: adr...@cee.hw.ac.uk |
| UKRA: 1026 | Po: MIA 26/8/98

Cyclops

unread,
Nov 4, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/4/98
to
Suzi <Su...@lspace.org> said...

> An~ejo wrote:
> >
> > Rugby League _is_ the One True Code. You can tell because
> > the players actually _play_rugby_ rather than just trying to
> > beat each other up. In fact, they manage to do both at the
> > same time....
>
> At least in proper Rugby (_Union_) they don't keep stopping every five
> seconds just because someone happens to have a light hold of their
> ankle... looks more like American football to me!!
>
But in union they don't even move 'cos they're too busy rucking,
mauling and any other euphemism they can think of for fondling
each others' buttocks! <g>

>
> > And I'm not arguing on the matter cos I know I'm right.
>
> :-P we can't both be right - and I *know* I'm not wrong here <g>
>
As a totally unbiased <g> judge, I have to side with Ane~jo.

--
Cyclops - NB: Don't forget to take the "p" out of my e-mail
address! NB: Don't e-mail from Hotmail, AOHell, Xoom or Juno
addresses AFP Code v1.1a AGo-UK d s-: a U+ R F++ !h P++ OS--:
C+++ M-- pp! L c- B(+) Cn-:- PT++++ Pu66 5-- X MT- eV r% y? end


Inneke Geysen

unread,
Nov 5, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/5/98
to

Sam heeft geschreven in bericht <364010a0...@news.dircon.co.uk>...


>Emma of XXXXia put digit to keypad, to say:
>
><snip>

Other times
>>things are just so much a part of culture that you can't help but make
>>references to them, in which case the Annotations posts become a bit
>>boring as they're just so bl**dy obvious. All things in moderation, I
>>say!
>>
>Boring to some, because they're obvious to some. Maybe they are not
>so obvious to others who have a different cultural background.
>
>Sam


I agree with that. Especially the 'English Slang'-references are often hard
to spot for people who have English as their second (or in my case third)
language, even if they're 'bl**dy obvious' for others.

kisses, Inneke
--
"The relevant equation is: knowledge = power = energy = matter = mass;
a good bookshop is just a genteel Black Hole that knows how to read"


Meg, the Magpie

unread,
Nov 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/7/98
to
Okay, so on Wed, 4 Nov 1998 18:52:50 +1100, funky...@hotmail.com
(Emma of XXXXia) said :

<snip>

>> Look, this is a text based medium, people. It involves a moderately
>> careful use of words -- we surely all know this, which is why the very
>> useful smiley was invented to indicate a comment made in a friendly way.
>> Did 'Airplane' *steal* references to a few dozen other movies? Surely
>> all those references added to the fun.

<snip>


>Yep. The only point I can see at all to Annotations (the froup
>definition, which I have always assumed has nothing to do with stealing)
>is that sometimes the Annotated bit is a joke whose meaning is lost if
>you don't know the bit of pop culture it is based on etc. TLC probably

>had a few of those - sometimes it helps to explain the idea. Other times

>things are just so much a part of culture that you can't help but make
>references to them, in which case the Annotations posts become a bit
>boring as they're just so bl**dy obvious. All things in moderation, I
>say!

<fx: out with the afphistorian hat *again*>

As it is written, verily, either in the FAQs or in the introduction to
the Annotated Pratchett File, the purpose of the Annotations is *to
explain the bits that people may not get*. This means that something
is really only annotation-worthy if it is an *obscure* piece of
popular culture (eg "We're Certainly Dwarfs") or *specific to a
particular culture* (eg A lot of TLC). Otherwise, you aren't
genuinely annotating, you're merely pointing out the obvious to people
who have already noticed.

<fx: hat off>

In the case of CJ, I would suggest that *most* of the vampire lore
*will not need to be annotated*. If Pterry has come up with something
specifically wierd and odd, annotate *that*, but please, let's drop
all the references to "Dracula" (books, films, "the boke of the
filum"), and, for preference, all the references to Anne Rice and her
books.

Generally, it's a case of using your common sense. The comments about
keeping it polite also stand, and I'm glad Leo spoke out on this
issue.

Meg the Magpie (again, if you have a correction on the historical bit,
please, let me know).
--
Meg, The Magpie... AFPlump, AFPetite, AFPerth...
afpiance to The Collective, afprelative to a fair whack of afp.
(and why *shouldn't* I have all the fun?)
[mail me at mag...@megabitch.tm]

Dick Eney

unread,
Nov 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/7/98
to
aol, aol. Finding genuine annotations is fun and sometimes helpful to
expand the resonances. Phrasing them correctly is vital. Annotations,
resonances, allusions, and random serendipitous similarities all happen,
and none of them are "nicked". We read the books and enjoy them at least
partly because of the wonderful precision with which Terry uses words; IMO
we should try to live up to that standard by using words carefully
ourselves.

=Tamar

Miq

unread,
Nov 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/7/98
to
On Sat, 7 Nov 1998, Meg, the Magpie <mag...@megabitch.tm> wrote

>In the case of CJ, I would suggest that *most* of the vampire lore
>*will not need to be annotated*. If Pterry has come up with something
>specifically wierd and odd, annotate *that*, but please, let's drop
>all the references to "Dracula" (books, films, "the boke of the
>filum"), and, for preference, all the references to Anne Rice and her
>books.

I agree that *most* of the vampire references are generic, and to
say 'this derives from book x' is going to be very arbitrary and
say more about the limitations of one's own reading than anything
else. But I *think* there may still be references to particular
stories in there, that will not be entirely obvious unless you've
actually read that particular book - and I don't think it's
reasonable to assume that everyone's read either Dracula or Anne
Rice.

F'rinstance, there's the use of names from Dracula that Richard
mentioned a day or two ago - only people who've read the book
would be sure to notice that, I'd say.

>Generally, it's a case of using your common sense. The comments about
>keeping it polite also stand, and I'm glad Leo spoke out on this
>issue.

AOL. (Is it 'Hear, hear' or 'here, here'? I never did get that.)

--
Miq - afpiance to the observant MEG and the well-read Supermouse,
afpsibling to sanguinary Heather, Honorary Mole, Phing, Phost and Afpgony Aunt

Leo Breebaart

unread,
Nov 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/7/98
to
mag...@megabitch.tm (Meg, the Magpie) writes:

> the purpose of the Annotations is *to explain the bits that people may
> not get*.

True. But there are *lots* of things people don't get. Trust me on this.

> This means that something is really only annotation-worthy if it is an
> *obscure* piece of popular culture (eg "We're Certainly Dwarfs") or
> *specific to a particular culture* (eg A lot of TLC).

That's certainly how the APF started out. The problem is that over time,
the consensus as to what constitutes "obscure" or "particular" has all but
disappeared.

Terry's audience (and therefore that of the APF) has expanded enormously.
It's no longer just a question of the non-Brits "legitimately" not knowing
what 'conkers' is, who Dick Turpin was, or that a Greek poet was once
killed by an eagle dropping a tortoise on his head.

There are now also legions of enthusiastic fans who have never (yet) read a
line of Shakespeare, mythology or the Bible in their lives. Or fans who
don't speak English as a native language and therefore have trouble
'getting' even some of the most 'obvious' forms of wordplay, but who insist
on reading the original novels because they *still* like them better than
the translations.

So the focus of the APF has accordingly shifted a bit over the years from
"explaining the obscure jokes" towards just "explaining the jokes". I'm
sure this will turn some people off, and the sheer size of the APF is
getting to be a bit of a related problem, but feedback in my mailbox
indicates that so far, the approach works, even for the Brits.

(This may partially be because I deliberately try to make some of the
'no-brainer' annotations interesting as well, by adding trivia or going off
on a wild tangent. The Laddie --> Lassie annotation for MP is a good
example of that, I think.)

> In the case of CJ, I would suggest that *most* of the vampire lore
> *will not need to be annotated*.

But exactly the same goes for most of the phantom lore in M!M, the movie
lore in MP, the rock lore in SM, the Australian lore in TLC, the Asian lore
in IT, the Shakespeare lore in WS, and the fantasy lore in TCOM. Where do
you draw the line, and why? For now, I think the Annotated Pratchett File
will continue to annotate *and* explain.

--
Leo Breebaart <l...@lspace.org>

Alison Rowan

unread,
Nov 7, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/7/98
to
mag...@megabitch.tm (Meg, the Magpie) writes:

> In the case of CJ, I would suggest that *most* of the vampire lore

> *will not need to be annotated*. If Pterry has come up with something
> specifically wierd and odd, annotate *that*, but please, let's drop
> all the references to "Dracula" (books, films, "the boke of the
> filum"), and, for preference, all the references to Anne Rice and her
> books.

I would suggest (cautiously, since i haven't read it) that the
annotations eventually on l-space end up with a bit at the beginning
summarising the lore of vampires according to popular culture, just in
case some people have managed to avoid knowing some of it. Some of the
Dracula stuff, such as being able to ruen into a mist, or needing
earth to sleep on, have mostly been left out of more recent examples
of the genre.

--
Purple Rabbits
also at http://www.hedonism.demon.co.uk/rabbits/
Crap wannafucks will be publicly pilloried on my Web pages
Actively Seeking Work - has anybody got a job?

Sam

unread,
Nov 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/8/98
to
Leo Breebaart put digit to keypad, to say:

>
>(This may partially be because I deliberately try to make some of the
>'no-brainer' annotations interesting as well, by adding trivia or going off
>on a wild tangent. The Laddie --> Lassie annotation for MP is a good
>example of that, I think.)
>
and you do it very well. I found the apf immensely readable even
where the annotations were obvious to me. Reading it takes you
back to the books and makes me chuckle at the memories. The extra
info, whilst lengthening the text, is well worth the read.

Though perhaps we don't need to waste our time with [A] threads on
afp where the annotation is soooo obvious, I'm quite sure that Leo
will pick these up without our help. But maybe he would like some
snippets of additional info if you know something unusual that is
connected...

Cyclops

unread,
Nov 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/8/98
to
Alison Rowan <rab...@hedonism.demon.co.uk> said...

> mag...@megabitch.tm (Meg, the Magpie) writes:
>
> > In the case of CJ, I would suggest that *most* of the vampire lore
> > *will not need to be annotated*. If Pterry has come up with something
> > specifically wierd and odd, annotate *that*, but please, let's drop
> > all the references to "Dracula" (books, films, "the boke of the
> > filum"), and, for preference, all the references to Anne Rice and her
> > books.
>
> I would suggest (cautiously, since i haven't read it) that the
> annotations eventually on l-space end up with a bit at the beginning
> summarising the lore of vampires according to popular culture, just in
> case some people have managed to avoid knowing some of it. Some of the
> Dracula stuff, such as being able to ruen into a mist, or needing
> earth to sleep on, have mostly been left out of more recent examples
> of the genre.
>
This might not be such a bad thing as quite a lot of the
accepted vampire lore is, I think, from the Hollywood/Hammer
versions of the Dracula films and contradict Stoker's book and
probably European mythology as well.
e.g. IIRC in the book Dracula, vampires are only wary of
daylight because they can't change shape so, if Dracula was a
bat at daybreak, he'd stay a bat until sunset. I believe it was
a film director or script writer who came up with the turning to
dust in sunlight thing.

Julie Winkless

unread,
Nov 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/8/98
to
Antti Lehtola wrote
<snipped what Antti was replying to>
> So Dids is a dork because he made an annotation using pretty much
> the same terminology than anybody else here? Really...
>
> I'm with Leo - we should watch our language when making
annotations.
> What makes him very easy to agree with is the fact that *he*
watched
> *his* language while bringing up the point.
>
> Obviously Dids didn't mean 'nick' as a synonym for 'plagiarize'.
He
> just used it like it's, unfortunately, been used around here.
>
> So let's ALL try not to use word when annotating - but let's not
> start calling people dorks either, when clearly there has been no
> malice behind anybody's actions.
>

Antti you are a wonderful person

Will you marr... hang on...

igmc

Logical bonds

Julie

... a strange singing girl...

apfianced to Antti at last

Terry Pratchett

unread,
Nov 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/8/98
to
In article <86lnlnp...@hedonism.demon.co.uk>, Alison Rowan
<rab...@hedonism.demon.co.uk> writes

>Some of the
>Dracula stuff, such as being able to ruen into a mist, or needing
>earth to sleep on, have mostly been left out of more recent examples
>of the genre.
>

Dunno. Coppola's 'Dracula' contained both. But the whole vampire thing
has now become completely pick n' mix.
--
Terry Pratchett

Antti Lehtola

unread,
Nov 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/8/98
to

Julie Winkless wrote:
>Antti Lehtola wrote:
><snipped what Antti was replying to>
>> So Dids is a dork because he made an annotation using pretty much
>> the same terminology than anybody else here? Really...
>>
>> I'm with Leo - we should watch our language when making
>annotations.
>> What makes him very easy to agree with is the fact that *he*
>watched
>> *his* language while bringing up the point.
>>
>> Obviously Dids didn't mean 'nick' as a synonym for 'plagiarize'.
>He
>> just used it like it's, unfortunately, been used around here.
>>
>> So let's ALL try not to use word when annotating - but let's not
>> start calling people dorks either, when clearly there has been no
>> malice behind anybody's actions.
>>
>
>Antti you are a wonderful person


Thank you thank you thank you...but I was also, apparently, wrong.

Peter sent me an e-mail later, explaining that his post was not
aimed at Dids - it was just a joke about someone missing the irony
in Pterry's post. And in this case the word 'dork' does not, of
course, possess the...anger it would have had if it had been aimed
at Dids. Which it wasn't.

I meant to make a public AFPology to Peter right then, but for some
reason I didn't. So I'll make one now...

Sorry, Peter...forgive me?

Antti - antti....@kolumbus.fi
--
AFPianced to the Poets in the Anthology,
"Apologies - Stories of Mistakes and Owning Up to Them",
AFPbrother to Rob Smiley, Heather, David and Babylon
AFPBig Brother to Claire - Member of Collective Nouns

Miq

unread,
Nov 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/8/98
to
On Sun, 8 Nov 1998, Cyclops <postm...@cyclops.force9.co.ukp>
wrote

>This might not be such a bad thing as quite a lot of the
>accepted vampire lore is, I think, from the Hollywood/Hammer
>versions of the Dracula films and contradict Stoker's book and
>probably European mythology as well.

There's so many versions of vampires in various bits of European
folklore that even Stoker's version is far from definitive. The
changing form, for instance, isn't universal by a long way.

>e.g. IIRC in the book Dracula, vampires are only wary of
>daylight because they can't change shape so, if Dracula was a
>bat at daybreak, he'd stay a bat until sunset.

This is a bit ambiguous in the book. It's never spelled out
exactly what Dracula can and can't do during the day. Most of the
time he spends in his coffin, but he is once or twice reported as
having been up and about during the day.

It's clear that he's much less powerful during the day, and my
guess is that, since he has to sleep *sometime*, that's when he
does it. But you'd think he'd do something, if he could, when
someone ripped open his coffin.

--
Miq - afpiance to the knowledgable MEG and the nocturnal Supermouse,
afpsibling to Heather, Honorary Mole, Phing, Phost and Afpgony Aunt

Peter Ellis

unread,
Nov 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/8/98
to
antti....@kolumbus.fi wrote...

>
>
>Peter sent me an e-mail later, explaining that his post was not
>aimed at Dids
>

'twas aimed at the bits I quoted......

>
>Sorry, Peter...forgive me?
>

Yeah, sure. It's not important enough to get het up over -- not a lot
is...

Fancy a bit of Stilton? <g>

By the way, rereading some of your recent posts -- can I also warn you
that if you make me C|N>K *once* more I'll be forced to marry you? This
is not optional...

Peter

Patrick 'Turtle' Dersjant

unread,
Nov 8, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/8/98
to
On Sat, 7 Nov 1998 09:56:06 +0000, Miq <Mi...@kew1.demon.co.uk>
created:

>On Sat, 7 Nov 1998, Meg, the Magpie <mag...@megabitch.tm> wrote

>>In the case of CJ, I would suggest that *most* of the vampire lore
>>*will not need to be annotated*. If Pterry has come up with something
>>specifically wierd and odd, annotate *that*, but please, let's drop
>>all the references to "Dracula" (books, films, "the boke of the
>>filum"), and, for preference, all the references to Anne Rice and her
>>books.
>

>I agree that *most* of the vampire references are generic, and to
>say 'this derives from book x' is going to be very arbitrary and
>say more about the limitations of one's own reading than anything
>else. But I *think* there may still be references to particular
>stories in there, that will not be entirely obvious unless you've
>actually read that particular book - and I don't think it's
>reasonable to assume that everyone's read either Dracula or Anne
>Rice.

True. I haven't. I know most of the Dracula lore - it's common
culture, IMHO even if you haven't read the books - at least you might
have seen the movie. But I still haven't read the book[1]. Pointing
out the references, as well as PTerry OBE actually *writing* the
books, makes it a lot more attractive to me[2] to read those books I
haven't read yet in any case.

>F'rinstance, there's the use of names from Dracula that Richard
>mentioned a day or two ago - only people who've read the book
>would be sure to notice that, I'd say.

Right.

>>Generally, it's a case of using your common sense. The comments about
>>keeping it polite also stand, and I'm glad Leo spoke out on this
>>issue.
>
>AOL. (Is it 'Hear, hear' or 'here, here'? I never did get that.)

AFAIK Hear, hear would make more sense, as an affirmative.

Patrick

[1] I haven't even seen the movie.
[2] Who else? I mean, I hadn't heard of Fritz Leiber before I read the
APF - I go turned onto TP by a friend who noticed I liked Douglas
Adams[3], and read Good Omens first, followed by the DW novels in
chronological order. And now, here I am, reading Leiber, etc. - just
to be able to trace the annotations. And enjoying it.
[3] Ahum. I am not going to comment on my .signature
--
'Do you want me to put some more graffiti on that wall, like <snipped name>
sucks?' - Terry Pratchett, signing my UU model in the Hague, Halloween '98

Kheldar

unread,
Nov 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/12/98
to

Leo Breebaart wrote:

> Snipped an explanation of APF by the author, very good work.


>
> > In the case of CJ, I would suggest that *most* of the vampire lore
> > *will not need to be annotated*.
>

> But exactly the same goes for most of the phantom lore in M!M, the movie
> lore in MP, the rock lore in SM, the Australian lore in TLC, the Asian lore
> in IT, the Shakespeare lore in WS, and the fantasy lore in TCOM. Where do
> you draw the line, and why? For now, I think the Annotated Pratchett File
> will continue to annotate *and* explain.

There is also a major point with vampire and particularly Draculaic
stuff. Most ppl *think* they know stuff about vampires and are
completely wrong, eg. readers of Anne Rice or ppl who've seen the
early Dracula films. Lore on vampires has been majorly corrupted
in the last 50 years, and I for one thoroughly enjoyed the
annotative comments above on Vlad Dracul's name and it's
derivation, etc. which I'd only heard bits of before. In the case
of vampire law, annotation has a corrective as well as informative
function.

~Chris

--
Shopping in the SweetShoppe, Kheldar snipped:
'Life', said Marvin. 'Don't talk to me about life.'
Stored in Meta.Harem we have:-
The graceful Anejo and the winsome Merry...

An Thi-Nguyen Le

unread,
Nov 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/12/98
to
On Thu, 12 Nov 1998 15:18:04 +0000, Kheldar typed:

} There is also a major point with vampire and particularly Draculaic
} stuff. Most ppl *think* they know stuff about vampires and are
} completely wrong, eg. readers of Anne Rice or ppl who've seen the
} early Dracula films. Lore on vampires has been majorly corrupted
} in the last 50 years, and I for one thoroughly enjoyed the
} annotative comments above on Vlad Dracul's name and it's
} derivation, etc. which I'd only heard bits of before. In the case
} of vampire law, annotation has a corrective as well as informative
} function.

That mentioned, anyone have a *good* book about vampire lore? One
that, and I repeat, does not have pictures.

I may dabble in reading about the supernatural, but by no means do
I have the stomach to see it. Even the ones with the fake blood that
is so obviously catsup.


--
An Thi-Nguyen Le v^.
Silent Death of Viper House ; <,
http://www.students.uiuc.edu/~anle/HOMEPAGE ====
"If we succeed, no one will remember. And if we fail, no one will forget!"

in...@fdhoekstra.nl

unread,
Nov 12, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/12/98
to
An Thi-Nguyen Le wrote:
> That mentioned, anyone have a *good* book about vampire lore? One
> that, and I repeat, does not have pictures.
>
> I may dabble in reading about the supernatural, but by no means do
> I have the stomach to see it. Even the ones with the fake blood that
> is so obviously catsup.

Well, you could do worse, lore-wise, than the original
"Dracula" by Bram Stoker. Most editions do not have
pictures. Of course, it is not really a very well written
book, but then, most of its offspring isn't, either.
Keep in mind, though, that it's not the only view on
vampires, and not the definite version of the legend;
there is no such thing, vampires being a subject of
folklore and every second village having, therefore,
a different opinion on them.
Nosferatu seems also to be recommended, but I don't
know who wrote that and haven't read it myself.

Richard

za...@my-dejanews.com

unread,
Nov 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/13/98
to
S
p
o
i
l
e
r

s
p
a
c
e

S
p
o
i
l
e
r

s
p
a
c
e

Pixies with blue skin and Scottish accents... Oh you mean Pict-ies!

Did anyone mention this allready?

-----------== Posted via Deja News, The Discussion Network ==----------
http://www.dejanews.com/ Search, Read, Discuss, or Start Your Own

Gonzalo San Martin

unread,
Nov 13, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/13/98
to
Oh yes, PTerry did. It's actually in the book.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dr. Gonzalo San Martin
e-mail: sanma...@logica.com
Real Madrid Web: http://www.yrl.co.uk/~gonzalo/rm/
All opinions expressed are solely those of the author and not of Logica

RobH...@compuserve.com

unread,
Nov 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/18/98
to

On 1998-11-12 an...@ews.uiuc.edu said:
>That mentioned, anyone have a *good* book about vampire lore? One
>that, and I repeat, does not have pictures.
>I may dabble in reading about the supernatural, but by no means do
>I have the stomach to see it. Even the ones with the fake blood
>that is so obviously catsup.

>--
>An Thi-Nguyen Le v^.

I haven't read it, or for that matter ever seen
a copy anywhere (gosh, I'm helpful !), but I've
heard tell of "The Vampire - His Kith and Kin"
by Montague Summers, which I understand is a
sort of history (or geography ?) of vampire
legends. Since I've never seen it anywhere
I've no idea if it has pictures or not - sorry.

--
Lady O'Bookworm

"The glassblower's cat is bompstable" - Dorothy L. Sayers

Net-Tamer V 1.10.1 - Registered

Heather Knowles

unread,
Nov 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/18/98
to
In article <uBI$EqyE#GA....@nih2naaa.prod2.compuserve.com>,
RobH...@Compuserve.com writes

>
>I haven't read it, or for that matter ever seen
>a copy anywhere (gosh, I'm helpful !), but I've
>heard tell of "The Vampire - His Kith and Kin"
>by Montague Summers, which I understand is a
>sort of history (or geography ?) of vampire
>legends. Since I've never seen it anywhere
>I've no idea if it has pictures or not - sorry.
>
It does, but it's pretty cr*p and self-important - he wrote it in the
20s as part of a serious work of scholarship (the edition available now
in your friendly local remaindered bookshop is usually a compilation of
two of his books).

If you want pix as well as info, try 'Vampire: the Encyclopaedia' by
Matthew Bunson (Thames & Hudson, ISBN 0-500-27748-6) or, for films,
'Hollywood Gothic' by David J Skal (Andre Deutsch, ISBN 0-233-98766-5).
The complete text of Dracula, published as 'The Essential Dracula' by
Bram Stoker with annotations by Leonard Wolf is also pretty funky
(Plume, ISBN 0-452-26943-1).

i may be a pedantic knowall, but I do *try* to be helpful....
--

lotsa luv
Heather
xxxxxxx
It is impossible to enjoy idling thoroughly unless one
has plenty of work to do - Jerome K. Jerome

Dick Eney

unread,
Nov 18, 1998, 3:00:00 AM11/18/98
to
In article <45NSJMAW...@fanged.demon.co.uk>,

Heather Knowles <hea...@fanged.demon.co.uk> wrote:
>In article <uBI$EqyE#GA....@nih2naaa.prod2.compuserve.com>,
>RobH...@Compuserve.com writes
>>
>>I haven't read it, or for that matter ever seen
>>a copy anywhere (gosh, I'm helpful !), but I've
>>heard tell of "The Vampire - His Kith and Kin"
>>by Montague Summers, which I understand is a
>>sort of history (or geography ?) of vampire
>>legends. Since I've never seen it anywhere
>>I've no idea if it has pictures or not - sorry.
>>
>It does, but it's pretty cr*p and self-important - he wrote it in the
>20s as part of a serious work of scholarship (the edition available now
>in your friendly local remaindered bookshop is usually a compilation of
>two of his books).
<snip>

It's a weird book, either way. Y'see, Montague Summers _believed_, and
wrote the book as a serious warning. IIRC he collected everything he
could find that seemed even related, from Greek ghouls to Romanian
wampyrs, and called them all vampires. If nothing else, it'll tell you
how many variations there are, and how much simpler and cleaner-seeming
the standard hollywood version is.

IIRC, Summers also did a book on werewolves.

=Tamar

Reply all
Reply to author
Forward
0 new messages